The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 84

Thread: Cap-and-Trade

  1. #26
    1471, gotta have it Kenny Powers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by BilltheButcher View Post
    LOL. Ok, I understand now. What I mean by man on the moon program is develop an alternative energy program similar to what Kennedy did when he proposed putting a man on the moon. I don't mean finding energy on the moon. Oh, boy.
    haha, i gotcha now. my bad for misunderstanding lol

    that is already going on though. all major energy companies are currently working on that. trust me, they all want to be the first one to develop a cheaper energy source, because if they do they will make tons of money.

    money is an excellent motivational tool, and it always has been. when people are rewarded for their successes that is when the most innovation takes place

    i just disagree that the government should take money away from everyone else and throw it into some sort of developmental program. the government has no idea about energy sources, which ones are viable or not. not to mention the fact that they already tried this with ethanol and threw tons of government subsidized money (which we paid for) into it and it failed miserably despite that money.

    i simply think that you should leave companies alone. people are always looking for the newest and the best. the success that they will experience if a new energy source is found while be monumental.

    this motivation is enough, no government interference is necessary, especially because they would be essentially "picking" the entity which they wanted to offer support to for developing this energy. it would be far more effective to simply let everyone on their own in a traditional capitalist economy work on it.

    but this is just my opinion. i like to stay with whats tried and true. capitalism worked in this country for years, and is what allows the brightest and best minds in this country to rise to the top.

    also, as an aside, look for gas hydrates to be one of these new alternative fuel sources. check it out on google if interested, pretty good stuff

  2. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny Powers View Post
    capitalism worked in this country for years, and is what allows the brightest and best minds in this country to rise to the top.
    I think some might argue with that point. They just released private job growth numbers for the 10 year period 1998-2009. Job growth in these sectors was 1.1% for this period, and if you take our "private" industries like hospitals, it was 0.5% which is pathetic given that during that time period we had the Internet boom.

    Back on topic, I think this cap-and-trade system is a good thing as well, although maybe mis-timed. However, is there ever going to be a time when people are going to be happy about increased taxes? I think the sooner we can produce our own energy and not have to deal with the Middle East, the better. That areas hasn't been stable in 4000 years, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

  3. #28
    Tap, Rack, Bacon ncsuLuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,348
    there was a fantastic article about this and goldman sachs in Rolling Stone basically showing how all this will be is a new "bubble" for goldman to exploit and leave all the taxpayers to finance their entire gain....I highly recommend taking a look at it

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/16763183/TaibbiGoldmanSachs

  4. #29
    1471, gotta have it Kenny Powers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by geoffsherman View Post
    I think some might argue with that point. They just released private job growth numbers for the 10 year period 1998-2009. Job growth in these sectors was 1.1% for this period, and if you take our "private" industries like hospitals, it was 0.5% which is pathetic given that during that time period we had the Internet boom.

    Back on topic, I think this cap-and-trade system is a good thing as well, although maybe mis-timed. However, is there ever going to be a time when people are going to be happy about increased taxes? I think the sooner we can produce our own energy and not have to deal with the Middle East, the better. That areas hasn't been stable in 4000 years, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.
    how does cap and trade facilitate more energy production here?

    all that we have seen is MORE taxes on energy companies. subsidies for uneconomic supposedly "environmentaly friendly" energy sources.

    and also, i would say that we havent been under a truly capitalist regime for quite a while. government spending and interference is at an all time high, and grew a ton under bush and is now being taken to the next level under obama.

    you can name failed government programs till you are blue in the face, its not hard. not to mention the most recent real estate program failure which was brought on by the government pushing banks to reduce loan standards.

  5. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny Powers View Post
    how does cap and trade facilitate more energy production here?

    all that we have seen is MORE taxes on energy companies. subsidies for uneconomic supposedly "environmentaly friendly" energy sources.

    and also, i would say that we havent been under a truly capitalist regime for quite a while. government spending and interference is at an all time high, and grew a ton under bush and is now being taken to the next level under obama.

    you can name failed government programs till you are blue in the face, its not hard. not to mention the most recent real estate program failure which was brought on by the government pushing banks to reduce loan standards.
    http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

    In that same article, the only "industry" growing jobs was the government which is obviously not capitalism. The economy has to create something like 100k+ jobs a month just to sustain those people who are coming into the work force. With the market meltdown and people now needing to work longer as a consequence of that, the economy will need to create more jobs than that to just sustain the injection of more people into the workforce.

  6. #31
    1471, gotta have it Kenny Powers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by geoffsherman View Post
    http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

    In that same article, the only "industry" growing jobs was the government which is obviously not capitalism. The economy has to create something like 100k+ jobs a month just to sustain those people who are coming into the work force. With the market meltdown and people now needing to work longer as a consequence of that, the economy will need to create more jobs than that to just sustain the injection of more people into the workforce.
    1) The link between hydrocarbons and "global warming" is weak at best. In fact, the existance of "global warming" is refuted by most top scientists. Its nothing but a giant hype machine facilitated by the government and "environmental" special interest groups.

    2) Almost 50 percent of the oil and gas workforce has been cut due to increased energy taxes and low prices. Thats how you lose jobs. Taxes against companies which prevent them from doing business and thus the workforce takes the hit.

    3) The fact that wind power or any other alternative fuel source is not the main fuel source shows that it is NOT the most economical solution. If it was more cost effective, it would be the primary source of energy. Its not, so hydrocarbons are the dominant source.

    4) More jobs will be created if the oil and gas companies have the taxes removed so they can do business. Drilling wells create a tremendous amount of jobs, this information can be found anywhere online.

    5) I have already provided information showing the remaining massive potential of hydrocarbons currently being blocked by offshore drilling restrictions. Restrictions that should be removed since they result in little to no negative environmental impact. The result will be more drilling so more jobs created, and more US oil and gas produciton therefore less foreign dependence on energy.

    6) There is no doubt that alternative fuel sources should be researched and new techniques to make energy consumption more efficient should be looked into. However, there is no reason not to fully exploit the best resources left here in the US. At this time, there is no doubt that those resources are hydrocarbons.

    BUT im going to leave it here. To each their own, there is always more than one way to skin a cat....
    Last edited by Kenny Powers; 06-27-2009 at 06:43 PM.

  7. #32
    Smeagol on Steroids Mercuryblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny Powers View Post
    1)
    The result will be more drilling so more jobs created, and more US oil and gas produciton therefore less foreign dependence on energy.
    I don't understand this argument, it's only true to a small extent. Oil will still go onto the international market. It's not like Exxon is going to suddenly decide that they will exclusively sell us $55/barrel oil when India is willing to pay $110.

  8. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny Powers View Post
    1) The link between hydrocarbons and "global warming" is weak at best. In fact, the existance of "global warming" is refuted by most top scientists. Its nothing but a giant hype machine facilitated by the government and "environmental" special interest groups.
    This is absolute trash.

    2) Almost 50 percent of the oil and gas workforce has been cut due to increased energy taxes and low prices. Thats how you lose jobs. Taxes against companies which prevent them from doing business and thus the workforce takes the hit.
    Good, their business is damaging and needs to be eliminated.

    3) The fact that wind power or any other alternative fuel source is not the main fuel source shows that it is NOT the most economical solution. If it was more cost effective, it would be the primary source of energy. Its not, so hydrocarbons are the dominant source.
    Economics are less important than the environment. If oil is more cost effective than wind, then taxes and regulations need to be adjusted to make it otherwise. You don't have a right to destroy the planet just so you can drive to Walmart in your Hummer.

    4) More jobs will be created if the oil and gas companies have the taxes removed so they can do business. Drilling wells create a tremendous amount of jobs, this information can be found anywhere online.
    We don't need more oil jobs, we need fewer.

  9. #34
    1471, gotta have it Kenny Powers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by anelka View Post
    This is absolute trash.



    Good, their business is damaging and needs to be eliminated.



    Economics are less important than the environment. If oil is more cost effective than wind, then taxes and regulations need to be adjusted to make it otherwise. You don't have a right to destroy the planet just so you can drive to Walmart in your Hummer.



    We don't need more oil jobs, we need fewer.
    provide any evidence from a credible source whatsoever that proves any of what you just said.

    NOTE: al gore doesnt count

    EDIT: also, taxes arent free. you and i will be paying for them. raising taxes doesnt make something more cost effective. its paid for by two things, taxes that you and i pay, and going into a higher budget deficit.

    ANYWAY, im not going to get into this any further. you have your opinions and i have mine. im not going to sit here and be immature and call your opinions trash. i have my factual sources that back up my opinions, not to mention that i work in a field which deals with environmental issues and "global warming" all the time. thats how i know that i am credible and knowledgeable enough to discuss it. are you?

    Quick link that took 2 seconds to find. Has over 20 peer reviewed studies. Most of which are very similar to the factual evidence i have seen in my graduate studies from my professors, one of which whose specialty is environmental geology and oceanography, working on the deep sea drilling project.

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8
    Last edited by Kenny Powers; 06-28-2009 at 10:17 AM.

  10. #35
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Genacide View Post
    Discuss

    Genacide, just so I'm clear, exactly what do you disagree with?

    Do you disagree that carbon emissions should be lowered?
    Or do you believe carbon emissions should be lowered, but disagree that a cap-and-trade type system can efficiently accomplish this?

  11. #36
    Wannabe Rick James Genacide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    Genacide, just so I'm clear, exactly what do you disagree with?

    Do you disagree that carbon emissions should be lowered?
    Or do you believe carbon emissions should be lowered, but disagree that a cap-and-trade type system can efficiently accomplish this?
    I all for reducing carbon emissions, but disagree with Cap-and-Trade. I'm also not a believer that carbon emissions is related to Global Warming.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  12. #37
    Paul killxswitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,184
    Kenny, FYI, that guy is a troll and never adds anything positive to any discussion, don't waste your time.

  13. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    170
    Yet another 1200 page bill that no one read. 300 pages were added on Thursday Night.

    THis bill will do nothing at all to curb the mythical global warming. It's kind of hard to stop global warming when the earth has been cooling for over 10 years now. But that shouldn't stop the liberals and 8 turncoat republicans who voted for the largest tax increase in the history of the US.

    Australia just overturned their Cap and Trade BS because of growing doubts over human contributions to global warming.

    Since when has a government saved the earth through taxation?

    Hopefully there are fewer reactionary radical liberals in the Senate.

  14. #39
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Genacide View Post
    I'm also not a believer that carbon emissions is related to Global Warming.
    This was what I was trying to get at. This is certainly a debate, but it is unrelated to your original point, which appeared to do with economics. That argument is one which inevitably devolves into a "global warming is real, global warming is a myth, you're a hateful nazi, you're a stupid hippie" thread.....which appears to be where certain members have attempted to take this one.




    I all for reducing carbon emissions, but disagree with Cap-and-Trade.
    Why? Reducing emissions requires one of two things to be fixed, either fixing the price (taxing emissions) or fixing the quantity. Fixing the quantity allows free markets to set the market-clearing price...it certainly seems more efficient to me. Alternatively, fixing the price does not have a happy history in efficiency.
    Since we agree that the debate is how to lower carbon emissions, I would be happy to hear an alternative mechanism which could lower carbon emissions more efficiently that a cap & trade-type regime. C&T certainly has worked very well to lower sulfur emissions over the past ~20 years.....this is no surprise, in general, markets tend to work pretty well.

  15. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    Why? Reducing emissions requires one of two things to be fixed, either fixing the price (taxing emissions) or fixing the quantity. Fixing the quantity allows free markets to set the market-clearing price...it certainly seems more efficient to me. Alternatively, fixing the price does not have a happy history in efficiency.
    Since we agree that the debate is how to lower carbon emissions, I would be happy to hear an alternative mechanism which could lower carbon emissions more efficiently that a cap & trade-type regime. C&T certainly has worked very well to lower sulfur emissions over the past ~20 years.....this is no surprise, in general, markets tend to work pretty well.
    First one needs to define precisely what type of "carbon emissions" are harmful to the environment, if in fact they are. The notion that humans contribute in anyway to global warming is anything but an accepted scientific fact.

    Humans emit carbon every time we exhale. So do all of the other oxygen breathing organisms on the planet. Volcanoes have been erupting since there were volcanoes, and the pour billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

    And as long as we are talking carbon - is it only the airborne variety that needs to be taxed by governments, or should it also be extended to the land-locked variety?

    We have been quite successful in the past 30 years in reducing hydro-carbon emissions from automobiles and coal fired electrical generation plants.

    The notion of purchasing "carbon credits" is laughable. Should I be able to sell the "carbon credits" produced by the trees on my property? There is no market for this type of thing except that which is mandated by the government. There has never been a successful market created by the mandate of congress.
    Last edited by rainjack; 06-29-2009 at 09:27 AM.

  16. #41
    Smeagol on Steroids Mercuryblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny Powers View Post
    provide any evidence from a credible source whatsoever that proves any of what you just said.

    NOTE: al gore doesnt count

    EDIT: also, taxes arent free. you and i will be paying for them. raising taxes doesnt make something more cost effective. its paid for by two things, taxes that you and i pay, and going into a higher budget deficit.

    ANYWAY, im not going to get into this any further. you have your opinions and i have mine. im not going to sit here and be immature and call your opinions trash. i have my factual sources that back up my opinions, not to mention that i work in a field which deals with environmental issues and "global warming" all the time. thats how i know that i am credible and knowledgeable enough to discuss it. are you?

    Quick link that took 2 seconds to find. Has over 20 peer reviewed studies. Most of which are very similar to the factual evidence i have seen in my graduate studies from my professors, one of which whose specialty is environmental geology and oceanography, working on the deep sea drilling project.

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8
    At least try and link to a website that has some level of objectivity. I can cherry pick studies to support whatever I want to as well.
    There are 16968 different studies that turn up when I search 'global warming' that can be found in Science, I haven't had time too look at all at 16,000+ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search...global+warming
    But I imagine there are probably some good cases on either side of the issue. I just don't think there is enough evidence at the point to draw any kind of end-all conclusion on the debate. You say your professor doesn't believe in global warming? I can tell you that at my university there were professors who thought that there is enough evidence to support human-influenced climate change. Obviously there is a right or wrong answer, but in such a widely debated topic right now, with experienced people from all backgrounds conducting massive studies, it's pretty short-sighted to jump onto one side without considering the possibility of being wrong.

  17. #42
    Senior Member BFGUITAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,620
    I think the issue whether global warming is real or not shouldn't be the focus. The fact is, we are running on a non-renewable resource. That alone should be a good reason to conserve energy. The carbon tax is an indirect way of doing so... the more carbon you shoot out the more fossil fuels you will be using and the less fuel we will have in the long run.

    That being said... before strict laws were in place acid rain was becoming quite common. Think about it... us humans acidified the rain. We basically altered nature to an epic degree. It wouldn't be too far out to believe that maybe expelling massive amounts of C02 in to the atmosphere might have some consequences.

    As a little side note... water vapour contributes to more then 50% of the green house effect. C02 actually is second to that.
    Brad08 has some insight for people who don't understand... anything.
    This is so ****ing ******ed it's almost beyond belief. So, if you eat 3k, you will automatically gain 3k worth of fat or muscle? Incredible. And here I am eating all this food, yet maintaining my weight. Fascinating.

    You're one of those pussies that counts his almonds I bet.

  18. #43
    Senior Member BFGUITAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercuryblade View Post
    At least try and link to a website that has some level of objectivity. I can cherry pick studies to support whatever I want to as well.
    There are 16968 different studies that turn up when I search 'global warming' that can be found in Science, I haven't had time too look at all at 16,000+ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search...global+warming
    But I imagine there are probably some good cases on either side of the issue. I just don't think there is enough evidence at the point to draw any kind of end-all conclusion on the debate. You say your professor doesn't believe in global warming? I can tell you that at my university there were professors who thought that there is enough evidence to support human-influenced climate change. Obviously there is a right or wrong answer, but in such a widely debated topic right now, with experienced people from all backgrounds conducting massive studies, it's pretty short-sighted to jump onto one side without considering the possibility of being wrong.
    I think a position many scientists take is "The human effects of global warming haven't been fully proven, but is it worth the risk?".

    This is an easy question to answer.. no it is not worth the risks. Especially when we have ways to greatly reduce fossil fuel consumption and yield more efficient processes. For example... internal combustion engines on the road are around 20-25% efficient. Electric motors can be 70% efficient or more.

    Not every scientist believes that global warming is real, but every scientist agrees we need to seriously cut back on fossil fuels for many many other reasons then the environment. I personally think saving the environment is lower on the list then making sure we don't run out of energy in 100 years.
    Last edited by BFGUITAR; 06-29-2009 at 09:44 AM.
    Brad08 has some insight for people who don't understand... anything.
    This is so ****ing ******ed it's almost beyond belief. So, if you eat 3k, you will automatically gain 3k worth of fat or muscle? Incredible. And here I am eating all this food, yet maintaining my weight. Fascinating.

    You're one of those pussies that counts his almonds I bet.

  19. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by BFGUITAR View Post
    I think the issue whether global warming is real or not shouldn't be the focus. The fact is, we are running on a non-renewable resource. That alone should be a good reason to conserve energy. The carbon tax is an indirect way of doing so... the more carbon you shoot out the more fossil fuels you will be using and the less fuel we will have in the long run.

    That being said... before strict laws were in place acid rain was becoming quite common. Think about it... us humans acidified the rain. We basically altered nature to an epic degree. It wouldn't be too far out to believe that maybe expelling massive amounts of C02 in to the atmosphere might have some consequences.

    As a little side note... water vapour contributes to more then 50% of the green house effect. C02 actually is second to that.
    Acid rain was not a global problem, but a local one. It has no place in a global warming discussion. One would have to be a colossal idiot not to know that man can be quite destructive to his local environment. It has been that way since man first took a dump.

    There is also quite some argument as to whether or not petroleum based fuels are truly non-renewable.

  20. #45
    Senior Member BFGUITAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,620
    Quote Originally Posted by rainjack View Post
    Acid rain was not a global problem, but a local one. It has no place in a global warming discussion. One would have to be a colossal idiot not to know that man can be quite destructive to his local environment. It has been that way since man first took a dump.

    There is also quite some argument as to whether or not petroleum based fuels are truly non-renewable.
    Well we stopped the problem before we made it worse. It shows that we can alter the environment in large ways. There was a time when all the rain on the planet was acid rain. Not saying it would happen again because of humans but the potential is there.

    And BTW taking a dump has zero negative effects on the planet.

    Can you explain how petroleum based are in any way renewable? I know the processes of how petroleum is made but of course that takes quite a while.
    Last edited by BFGUITAR; 06-29-2009 at 09:49 AM.
    Brad08 has some insight for people who don't understand... anything.
    This is so ****ing ******ed it's almost beyond belief. So, if you eat 3k, you will automatically gain 3k worth of fat or muscle? Incredible. And here I am eating all this food, yet maintaining my weight. Fascinating.

    You're one of those pussies that counts his almonds I bet.

  21. #46
    Wannabe Rick James Genacide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by shootermcgavin7 View Post
    This was what I was trying to get at. This is certainly a debate, but it is unrelated to your original point, which appeared to do with economics. That argument is one which inevitably devolves into a "global warming is real, global warming is a myth, you're a hateful nazi, you're a stupid hippie" thread.....which appears to be where certain members have attempted to take this one.

    Why? Reducing emissions requires one of two things to be fixed, either fixing the price (taxing emissions) or fixing the quantity. Fixing the quantity allows free markets to set the market-clearing price...it certainly seems more efficient to me. Alternatively, fixing the price does not have a happy history in efficiency.
    Since we agree that the debate is how to lower carbon emissions, I would be happy to hear an alternative mechanism which could lower carbon emissions more efficiently that a cap & trade-type regime. C&T certainly has worked very well to lower sulfur emissions over the past ~20 years.....this is no surprise, in general, markets tend to work pretty well.
    What I should have inserted into my last post is that I'm all for reducing carbon emmisions through Nuclear power... more of a bi product is the reduction than the goal. I think if the free market could decide we would have more Nuclear power plants, but with the unnecessary regulations on Nuclear power, were stuck with other options that are not as cost effective.


    ... it all made sense in my head at some point.
    Last edited by Genacide; 06-29-2009 at 09:57 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  22. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by BFGUITAR View Post
    Well we stopped the problem before we made it worse. It shows that we can alter the environment in large ways. There was a time when all the rain on the planet was acid rain. Not saying it would happen again because of humans but the potential is there.

    And BTW taking a dump has zero negative effects on the planet.

    Can you explain how petroleum based are in any way renewable? I know the processes of how petroleum is made but of course that takes quite a while.
    Altering one's local environment is not even in the same discussion as thinking we can alter the global climate. If we see global acid rain, it will not be because of human interference. It will be because of massive volcanic eruptions across the globe.

    As for taking a dump having zero effects on the planet - I didn't say that. I said we have been destroying our local environments since we started taking a dump. Do a little research on the River Thames and tell me that taking a dump has no bad effect on the environment.

    I will have to go hunt for the explanation on synthetic petroleum production. I can't remember the process, I just remember the article.
    Last edited by rainjack; 06-29-2009 at 10:52 AM.

  23. #48
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Genacide View Post
    What I should have inserted into my last post is that I'm all for reducing carbon emmisions through Nuclear power...

    Nuclear power does not impact the amount of emissions from other industries, like petrochemicals.


    I completely agree that it would partially offset emissions from the power generation industries.....but if you want to argue costs, the initial taxpayer bill for nuclear power is likely to be prohibitively expensive.

  24. #49
    Senior Member BFGUITAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,620
    Quote Originally Posted by rainjack View Post
    Altering one's local environment is not even in the same discussion as thinking we can alter the global climate. If we see global acid rain, it will not be because of human interference. It will be because of massive volcanic eruptions across the globe.

    As for taking a dump having zero effects on the planet - I didn't say that. I said we have been destroying our local environments since we started taking a dump. Do a little research on the River Thames and tell me that taking a dump has no bad effect on the environment.

    I will have to go hunt for the explanation on synthetic petroleum production. I can't remember the process, I just remember the article.
    Synthetic petroleum production does not make fossil fuels renewable. I have looked deeply in to this field of study as I am finishing a chemistry degree. The energy problem is something I want to focus on. I know there are ways to turn coal in to diesel but that doesn't solve the problem. The process of burning something is the worst way to get your energy... everyone knows that. It's just cheap and simple.

    If there was a cheap efficient way to make fossil fuels from CO2 we would be doing it... but that is an up hill battle in terms of energy. Eventually we go no where.

    Well if you dump all the dumps in one place no **** there will be problems lol. And ancient humans did not destroy local environments. If you consider cutting down a few trees destroying then yes... but that would mean elephants ruined the environment more than ancient humans.
    Brad08 has some insight for people who don't understand... anything.
    This is so ****ing ******ed it's almost beyond belief. So, if you eat 3k, you will automatically gain 3k worth of fat or muscle? Incredible. And here I am eating all this food, yet maintaining my weight. Fascinating.

    You're one of those pussies that counts his almonds I bet.

  25. #50
    Senior Member shootermcgavin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by rainjack View Post
    First one needs to define precisely what type of "carbon emissions" are harmful to the environment, if in fact they are. The notion that humans contribute in anyway to global warming is anything but an accepted scientific fact.

    Humans emit carbon every time we exhale. So do all of the other oxygen breathing organisms on the planet. Volcanoes have been erupting since there were volcanoes, and the pour billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

    And as long as we are talking carbon - is it only the airborne variety that needs to be taxed by governments, or should it also be extended to the land-locked variety?

    We have been quite successful in the past 30 years in reducing hydro-carbon emissions from automobiles and coal fired electrical generation plants.

    The notion of purchasing "carbon credits" is laughable. Should I be able to sell the "carbon credits" produced by the trees on my property? There is no market for this type of thing except that which is mandated by the government. There has never been a successful market created by the mandate of congress.

    Exhibit B of the unfocused, unproductive discussion I pointed out. I am discussing the market mechanism at hand. Feel free to bait other members with your pseudo-scientific ramblings. I'm not interested in the "global warming is real, global warming is a hoax" unending back and forth.

Similar Threads

  1. NBA Leastern Conf just got a bit more interesting
    By HobbesAB in forum General Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-10-2004, 06:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •